Saw yesterday the film The King's Speech. It is charming as a period piece and as a human story about friendship. The (future) king's experience of stammering and the importance of his having a friend to his coming to speech has much potential for discussions of how people "find their voice" and for riffs on how assurance of grace may enable identity and action.
But . . . what I went away thinking about was this: during WWII England had a king who could not speak and we had a president who did not walk. While the first seems to have been well known and the later was concealed to a degree, surely each man had a deep, visceral awareness of his limitations. That could lead to a leader who tries to overcompensate and forces the authority of the office on others; but, awareness of one's limitations can also generate humility and reliance on others and gratitude for collaboration. That second outcome seems well suited to leaders of a democracy. May we have more of this sort.
p.s. That said, when I made this observation elsewhere I slipped and implied that FDR was a king. My cousin replied that perhaps he was the closest to a king the USA has had. This could be the basis of a novel. Who is ready to write it? Opal?
No comments:
Post a Comment